Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12

[mysteriew]

So, if the GJ is in possession of those results now, don't you think that they will be asking some hard questions of Steve C, Mary, and, why not DP as he was "supposedly" the third person that saw Kathleen in the tub dead?????

Also, I would think they would like to talk to the "investigating officer" that originally wrote up the report of that day when they arrived.

We don't know who all is being called before the GJ. We do know that Steve C. has been called before them because he said so. But no one in media seems to have talked to Mary so we don't know if she has been called to testify or not. I would expect that she would be.
I hope they do talk to the investigating officer- lol if he isn't on "vacation" like he allegedly was during the coroner's jury.

 

[Camper]

I find that my job in watching this case is to merely wait and see what the GJ determines.

Legal professionals are dealing with the legalities of the findings being discovered in the Grand Jury ceremony, and WE as a group have not been consulted. Our peers are present doing their civic duties.

This is rather like having a brain surgeon posting here while we ask questions such as where is the head located?

Our justice system is at work, I say let it work, while I merely wait and observe. Who went in and who came out etc. is at least interesting.

I would like to know where the one trucker who appears to have not lied about being offered an 'opportunity' to transport a 'container' is, where is he, who is he, etc.

.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

LOL I love the analogy of the brain surgeon. Good point, Camper!

 

[Trino]

I find that my job in watching this case is to merely wait and see what the GJ determines.

I would like to know where the one trucker who appears to have not lied about being offered an 'opportunity' to transport a 'container' is, where is he, who is he, etc. .

My guess it that he/she will get out of this, i.e confused as to the person/place. It's just misinformation, which is what the police get every day.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Am I thinking correctly that this is the same GJ that is investigating Lisa Stebic's case, too? How many cases do they hear at once?!

 

[Pharlap]

Am I thinking correctly that this is the same GJ that is investigating Lisa Stebic's case, too? How many cases do they hear at once?!

I don't know how many but Plainfield is in Will County too.

Bolingbrook and Plainfield are both in Will county

 

[Littledeer]

A grand jury only listen to cases within its "county" jurisdiction.

Did Lisa Stebic live in the same county as Stacy?

 

[SuziQ]

I've yet to hear admissable and probative inculpatory evidence that Drew murdered Kathleen. If the prosecutor handling the GJ were to claim that an autopsy alleging Kathleen was murdered somehow proved Drew murdered Stacy too, they would be making a huge mistake. For if the GJ were to indict Drew with Stacy's murder by relying on such a claim, the GJ would later find out that an autopsy alleging Kathleen was murdered was not probative evidence in a murder trial wherein Drew was charged with murdering Stacy.

HTH

Oh dear Wudge, the only people guilty of murder are the ones who are caught actually commiting the act? Are their victims the only ones deserving of justice? Your arguments are flimsy and narrow minded at best. Sometimes your posts are interesting. Lately they have not made much sense.

 

[Wudge]

Oh dear Wudge, the only people guilty of murder are the ones who are caught actually commiting the act? Are their victims the only ones deserving of justice? Your arguments are flimsy and narrow minded at best. Sometimes your posts are interesting. Lately they have not made much sense.

The point was that if the GJ were to use a revised autopsy report on Kathleen's death to indict Drew for Stacy's alleged murder, it would not be inculpatory evidence that Drew murdered Kathleen or Stacy.

 

[DeltaDawn]

I believe that the autopsy report will show that Kathleen was murdered. I don't know that I would call it revised because Dr Baden said that the first report if a cornorer had made the decision instead of the cornorer's jury it would have been a similiar outcome to this autopsy. Meaning the both autopsys point to foul play.

We also have the addition of the phone records from that night when Stacy is trying to reach Drew. We don't know what they show..but it is probable that they will back up what the pastor said Stacy told him.

And if they found Stacy's journal with what she told the pastor backing up that info..then it would not be hearsay with the addition of the phone records.

Certainly this has got to play a part in this, is the letter Kathleen herself wrote to the Attorney General (?) saying she feared that her husband was going to kill her.

Then we have the Will, with the witnesses being Drew's family and friends..and Drew then getting his share of that and not having to pay child support. Which then goes toward setting a motive for the murder.

Then there is a good possiblity that there is other testimony and info the GJ has that we do not know about. But with what we do know there would be reason enough for a person on the GJ to think that Drew had motive, opportunity and was at the scene of the crime.

 

[Pharlap]

Does anyone know where Drew and Stacy was standing that night?
Where did they live back then?

 

[DeltaDawn]

Does anyone know where Drew and Stacy was standing that night?
Where did they live back then?

They lived in the house they currently live in is my understanding. And that this house is only a couple of blocks from where Kathleen's house was.

 

[Camper]

WElllllllll, IF IF the autopsy report is valid on cause of Kathleens death, WE would still have not positive proof that DP did ITor killed her in other words.

The only thing that WE know now is that Stacy told the minister that DP did IT. Stacy is missing and or not living, so she cannot speak up. Unless she is in HIDING, hmmm, er, huh, welllll, without a body no one really knows er?

BUT WE do know that Mark F. discovered that the telephone records of THAT night COULD be unearthed from the cell phone records that are STILL available. WE donut know IF IF those records have been found and what they show.

What else might the GJ have found that will add up to a grand total of things to hang DP?

Do any of us know what else is scheduled to happen in the GJ, people to call yet or what?

Meanwhile, in real time, just where are DP and the children? Surely LE knows ya think?

.

 

[DeltaDawn]

No idea where Drew and the children are at the moment.

 

[Pharlap]

They lived in the house they currently live in is my understanding. And that this house is only a couple of blocks from where Kathleen's house was.

Tks.
The cell pings should show that.
If Drew had his phone with him. Could he of put it somewhere else so he couldn't of been tracked? He didn't answer it right?

 

[ThoughtFox]

A grand jury only listen to cases within its "county" jurisdiction.

Did Lisa Stebic live in the same county as Stacy?

I think Pharlap already answered this, but it's clear from this article that the Will County police are searching for both women:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/676992,4_1_JO02_STEBIC_S1.article

The reason Stacy's case has received more press time than Stebic's is because Drew was a cop, and this is the second wife who has had something mysterious happen to her.

 

[Trino]

The point was that if the GJ were to use a revised autopsy report on Kathleen's death to indict Drew for Stacy's alleged murder, it would not be inculpatory evidence that Drew murdered Kathleen or Stacy.

You are correct that the evidence is circumstantial in relation to DP and KS. We, as well as law enforcement, can speculate forever and be certain in our minds that DP is involved, but speculation is not evidence that connects DP to a crime.

First, we have two different opinions on how KS died. While the latest called it homocide, and we can perhaps agree that this is correct, still, there are two opinions.

Second, DP has not been directly connected to KS's death. Where is any real factual evidence? Again, we can speculate, but opinions are not facts.

Third, S told the minister. Defense attorneys would tear this apart. Why didn't the minister come forward earlier? Was S lying? S's past will be raked through the mud.

Fourth, about the evidence connecting DP and S when she was out of town. So far, there is no evidence that has been uncovered, and we're not certain that S is DP's only alibi.

Fifth, SuziQ, please don't call anyone on this board narrow minded. We are all entitled to express our opinions.

 

[SuziQ]

Fifth, SuziQ, please don't call anyone on this board narrow minded. We are all entitled to express our opinions.

I didn't call Wudge narrow minded. I said the legal arguments are. And we all need to remember that everyone here is entitled to express their opinions without feeling threatened with a lawsuit for expressing them. (that's not directed at you Trino).

 

[Wudge]

You are correct that the evidence is circumstantial in relation to DP and KS. We, as well as law enforcement, can speculate forever and be certain in our minds that DP is involved, but speculation is not evidence that connects DP to a crime.

First, we have two different opinions on how KS died. While the latest called it homocide, and we can perhaps agree that this is correct, still, there are two opinions.

Second, DP has not been directly connected to KS's death. Where is any real factual evidence? Again, we can speculate, but opinions are not facts.

Third, S told the minister. Defense attorneys would tear this apart. Why didn't the minister come forward earlier? Was S lying? S's past will be raked through the mud.

Fourth, about the evidence connecting DP and S when she was out of town. So far, there is no evidence that has been uncovered, and we're not certain that S is DP's only alibi.

Fifth, SuziQ, please don't call anyone on this board narrow minded. We are all entitled to express our opinions.

Circumstantial evidence can certainly be sufficient evidence as regards satisfying the proof beyond a reasonable doubt requirement. However, strong circumstantial evidence (inculpatory evidence not collaborative evidence) would still have to satisfy the charges. For murder two, at a minimum, the State would need to prove malice aforethought. For murder one, the State would need to prove the added elements of willful, premeditated and deliberated.

Without a time of death, a place of death, a cause of death, a manner of death, an eyewitness, a crime scene, forensic evidence, a confession or a clear motive, I would not expect a GJ to indict Drew for murder. Nor would I expect the prosecutor to ask for such an indictment, for I can't see how the prosecutor could hope to prove a murder charge.

 

[Taximom]

Tks.
The cell pings should show that.
If Drew had his phone with him. Could he of put it somewhere else so he couldn't of been tracked? He didn't answer it right?

I think what LE is going to prove is Stacy's statement that Drew wasn't home and she didn't know where he was at the time. She SAID she made many calls to his cell that night. That's what I believe LE is going to look for to back-up what she told the pastor.

Sure all the extra info about where/when pings hit might be good, but he could have put the phone anywhere. There also might only be one tower handling the pings from KS's home and SP's home, so that might not prove anything.

Yes, yes, I know. Whether it's admissible in court or not, I don't know and could care less. You still have to find any information available in an investigation.